Talk:Frankenstein/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving, analysis, discussion

  • I have archived the previous discussion, which was quite long, and fairly old.
  • I have removed from the "analysis" section a number of unsourced and badly written stand alone essays. I encourage folks to expand the analysis section, but only with sourced information from recognized reliable sources. Please do not add your own essays and homework assignments, or stuff lifted from term-paper sites on the web, such material will be removed.
  • Please remember that this talk page is intended for discussion about the article, and is not a general forum for discussion about the book. Only conversation pertinent to improving the article should be held here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The analysis section is plagued by broken sentences, and ideas. Most notable is "Hannah", whom people should just ignore; her input is very poor, as is her ability to write coherently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.34.234 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture section

The criticism offered in this section is subpar, and does not match the ostensible topic. Statements indicating that the only thing Victor "does wrong" is neglect the creature indicate the text author does not grasp the moral complexity of the story, nor sees such writing as divergent from the "popular culture" topic. Move to delete and replace. Sterlingjones (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor brouhaha over spacing

A couple of people have attempted to remove the spacers in the article, and I'd like to explain to them why they are there. The spacers are there to correct a problem with the way Internet Explorer renders the page. Without them, the lede section butts right up against the table of contents, making it look unpleasant and causing it to be difficult to read. The same is true at the bottom of the page where the external links butt up against the navbox. This problem is not seen by people using other browsers.

I have looked at this page using Firefox and Safari, and the extra space, which is not necessary for these browsers, is not a real problem -- it's not like it creates an acre of whitespace, it's just an extra line. Since an awful lot of the people who casually drop in on Wikipedia to find some piece of information (the people whom we should be catering to, as they are the ones who will make us the first-choice for quick information on the net) will be using Internet Explorer to do so, and since the extra lines will help make the page more accessible and usable for them, without unduly hurting those who use other browsers, it would be best for the spacing to stay. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone is using a browser other than IE, Firefox or Safari, let me know and I'll look at the page using it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Characters

I see a redirect of some of t he characters in this novel has been boldly attempted, and reverted, so i will discus at this more central place. all named characters in classic novels with any significant role in the story are notable. There is invariably published criticism of such novels which will discuss them all, so a redirect is totally inappropriate. For Frankenstein in particular there is an enormous literature, to due both its iconic position, the multiple popular cultural adaptations, and the interest in the author. This is not a function of any particular privileged aesthetic position the classic novels may have to any individual, but rather the time available for discussion, and the academic interest in particular to them over the last century or two. . Personally, I've never been a man of this, so i hope someone else will do the work of adding them.. DGG (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph analysis

“I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic.” (Shelly) The first sentence begins very fluid and informs us of the narrator’s family stature of their birth origin. The first sentence gives the reader a fact statement. The narrator is from Geneva, which I had to research, is a nation of Switzerland. The narrator also writes that they are from a high political prominence in that nation. This does not give the reader any indication where the story’s direction of a plot will proceed, but it does give the reader the basis of the knowledge of the narrator’s place in society. I may expect the story to follow with a more in depth detailed perspective of his/her life growing up in a high statured Genevese family. This sentence leaves the reader with wanting to discover more about this family and how this person is going to develop, and allow us to explore into the tale of Frankenstein. -Unsigned

A couple of links

Could perhaps these links contain some interesting info worth mentioning in the article?; [1], [2], or [3]? (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually for literature articles, we use scholarship published by literary critics (see the list of books in the article). No one has really delved into these sources for this article yet, however, which is why the article is so deficient. Would you like to help? Awadewit (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but either way, maybe a new section of this article is required. When it comes to influence, it is mostly literary influences that is mentioned, and very little about the scientific and social influences. The novel is in this regard a product of its time, in an era that stood on the brink of a whole new world of science and discoveries. And even if the influences on the story are known, personally I wouldn't mind reading some of the influence the book itself had on others. I'm not referring to the stage plays, movie and comic versions and so on, but if and how it influenced other writers back then in their own work. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, every section of this article is deficient! If you want, I can guide you to some specific sources that discuss the scientific and cultural influences behind Frankenstein as well as its impact on nineteenth-century literature. Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm the right one to rewrite the whole article, but you could post the links you have in mind so that at least some parts of it can be updated. And even if I can't promise anything for sure, other could might have in interest in doing some edits as well. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Significant plot holes

The plot overview/synopsis leaves out a number of events very central to the plot and some of its most significant examples of social commentary. For example, the being's stay with the cottagers only receives a few lines, as does his story to Frankenstein as a whole. Also, I just revamped the synopsis into the literary present, but it's still pretty poorly written. Would someone mind taking some time editing that section for language? Tserton (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth: cousin or sister?

Regarding this recent edit which changed the description of Elizabeth from "adopted cousin" to "adopted sister": if this University of Pennsylvania site is anything to go by, then Elizabeth is both Victor's cousin and his adoptive sister (in the first edition, that is). In the third edition, she is no longer his cousin. Perhaps the plot summary needs tweaking to reflect this? – The Parting Glass 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 1818 edition says "sister" and the 1831 edition says "cousin". There are other differences between the two editions. I would suggest we use the 1818 edition to write the plot summary, as it is the one used by most scholars. Awadewit (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New archive

I've created a new archive, Talk:Frankenstein/Archive2. It should be listed in the box above, but is not. Anyone know the problem? Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You need a space between "Archive" and "2". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - I have fixed it now. Awadewit (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Another source

Thanks for the invitation to join in, Awadewit. I'm not sure if I'll be able to contribute in a sustained way, but here is a book you may have overlooked:

Todd, Janet. Death and the Maidens: Fanny Wollstonecraft and the Shelley Circle. Profile Books, 2007.

There are a dozen pages listed in the index for Frankenstein, including a close timeline of one part of the writing. e.g. p252. "Chapter 5 of Frankenstein, written in Bath immediately after Fanny killed herself, begins the new story of Justine." Todd is, of course, the author of a major biography of Wollstonecraft. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BB. I used that as a substantial source for Fanny Imlay. Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft - live or sandbox?

Do we want to create a draft article or just work on the "live" version? I'm going to be rereading Frankenstein in a couple of week, as I will be teaching it, so I thought that would be a good time to work on the plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never used a draft before, but I've also never worked on an article that had many hands in it. What are the advantages of using a draft? --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I was on vacation for a while - didn't get to this until now. Drafts are advantageous because you can work "in private" for a while and be messy - sentence fragments, no formatting - that sort of thing. Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Frankenstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: Stbalbach (talk · contribs), Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Wrad (talk · contribs), Mervyn (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/19th century task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Notice Board

Delisted per discussion with main author below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the GA Sweeps, I have tagged this article for reassessment. The WP:LEAD of this article needs to be restructured to follow the guidelines. The images are all PD. This article is quite deficient in citations. There are several entire paragraphs without a single citation. In fact, some entire sections have no references. The citation needed tag(s) need to be resolved. The concerned editors should review WP:WIAGA and attempt to bring this article up to the current standards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think Awadewit and Laser brain (see the article's talk) were planning on working on this article this summer (July was mentioned on Awadewit's talk), and at least Awadewit has a vacation notice up on her talk right now. IOW, this may be about the worst possible timing for a GAR. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Many GARs take 4 or 5 weeks to resolve. If in that time there is no sign of improvement efforts we can evaluate the article for delisting. I will keep this open for at least 4 or 5 weeks. Five weeks will take us past the middle of July.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This article was passed many years ago for GA and obviously does not meet the criteria for GA - it is an atrocious article: there are many sections missing, much of the article is poorly written, and much of the article is not sourced. Laser brain and I are currently working on improving it (you can see our plan on the talk page as well as our notes). If you want to delist it, go ahead. The article will take several months to complete. Awadewit (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So you would concur with delisting and renomination when appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, it is not a GA and if the GA community doesn't want to wait months for us to bring it up to GA status, they should delist it now. Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein in popular culture

As "Frankenstein in popular culture" is an enormous topic, I was wondering whether or not we should recruit someone to work on this section. I'm not particularly keen to work on it myself, being much more interested in the literary end of things. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture" in Wikipedia is generally a euphemism for trivia, and trivia in Wikipedia is officially discouraged (rightly so). I think the "...in popular culture" section here should be replaced with one concerning adaptations for stage and film, changing the title accordingly and erasing redundant references to these adaptations now scattered throughout the article. TheScotch (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There's always the broader "Legacy" option. On a related note, last time I checked Vampire had a decent pop culture section. I do agree that trivia needs to be avoided. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Working outline

Initial suggestion:

  • Lead
  • Biographical background
  • Plot summary
  • Composition and publication
    • Composition
    • 1818 edition
    • 1831 edition
  • Styles and genres
    • Gothic and horror
    • Science fiction
    • Sublime
    • Epistolarity/Frame story/Bibliogenesis
  • Themes
    • Reproduction/Motherhood
    • Feminism/Birth myth
    • Enlightenment/Romanticism
    • Homosocial and homoerotic desire
    • Mourning and melancholy
    • Imperialism/Slavery
    • Marxism
  • Reception
  • Legacy
    • Frankenstein in popular culture

I'd like to start organizing this article better to start moving toward an FA-quality drive. --Laser brain (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Styles and genres" and "Themes" layout needs to be improved. The coverage of letters and the frame story is much smaller than then gothic or science fiction. Also, what about the sublime and horror? Also, the themes listed here are some of the more insignificant themes covered by the literature. I would not dedicate entire sections to these at all. What about the Romantic individual? Feminism? Reproduction? The themes section needs to be radically rethought. Let's start by building a list of themes from the Cambridge Companion and introductions to Frankenstein. Awadewit (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, I will be working further on it. This is a living outline just meant to get conversation started. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is the Cambridge Companion is available through any online resources? The only thing I physically possess is the Norton Critical edition of the book (which contains some essays not listed in the bibliography) but I can get everything else through the library. --Laser brain (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Parts of the CC are available through Google Books, but not everything. Very little for this project is going to be available online, I'm afraid. The Broadview edition has an excellent introduction - I'll list themes from its introduction this weekend. Do you want to split up the books I listed in this bibliography - you read half and I read half? Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I have access to most library resources and will endeavor to obtain anything that's only available in hardcopy. My ILL and doc delivery services are pretty efficient. --Laser brain (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First stab at style/themes taken from the Broadview edition and the Cambridge Companion

These themes are listed in broad strokes:

We can use this list as a way to focus our reading. Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

theme of addiction

I'm not sure why the above essay has been added here? Шизомби (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Woman Who Wrote Frankenstein

Thank you, User:StN for replacing the Lauritsen paragraph. Unfortunately, User:Awadewit took it out again. S/he read the book's reviews (though apparently not the book itself) and learned that Lauritsen's hypothesis is a distinctly minority one. However, it already said that in the disputed paragraph. User:Awadewit's comment suggests that s/he thought the paragraph equates the weight of Lauritsen's hypothesis to that of 200 years of scholarship. This is not the case, as a reading of the paragraph will confirm. There is a role in an encyclopedia for minority views, if they are labeled as such, and have provoked discussion.Syzygos (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't include every minority view in the article. It has to gain some traction. This one has next to none. There are many minority views on Frankenstein - there are hundreds of books and articles on this novel. We don't include each one. Including this would be WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM of the worst kind. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we (i.e., you) need to remove the reference to this book from the Percy Bysshe Shelley article, then. Syzygos (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't have that article watchlisted, so I didn't know it was there. I've removed it. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Mary Shelley was highly affected by the circumstances in her life, the creation of the monster clearly portraying her deep fear of the power of electricity which was developed in her life time along with many other scientific break through's!
According to WP's POV guidelines even minority views have a right to representation (unless their importance is too low or multitude too high). As is, there are only two theories I have regularly heard mentioned, namely that (obviously) Mary wrote the book and that (alternately) Percy did. At any rate there is considerable evidence that the latter had some considerable influence through polishing, giving of advice, ... (Which is obviously what one would expect under the circumstances.) That a teenager (of either sex) writes a work of this accomplishment and import without assistance is more or less unheard of.88.77.181.215 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
But the Percy view isn't a minority view - it is a WP:FRINGE view. Among Shelley scholarship, no one takes seriously the theory that Percy wrote the book - only that he edited it. You are welcome to read through the list of books we have listed below to establish this. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it's a fringe view. I teach this book every year -- few scholars take the Percy view seriously anymore. Critic11 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Walls

I just removed the section about the critic Daniel Walls. I can't seem to find anything confirming this person's supposedly famous view. JHMM13(Disc) 04:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Whale's" Frankenstein

The section, "Frankenstein in popular culture" seem to be "blaming" James Whale for the deviations in his film from the Shelley novel. Whale's version was written by John Balderston; it was not Whale's own interpretation of Shelley's novel. I thought I changed that several years ago, but all references to it have since been excised. If you're going to fault someone for taking liberties, fault the right person. Canonblack (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Laser brain and I are researching a new version of the article (see above list of sources). You are welcome to help - we particularly need to someone to work on the "Frankenstein in popular culture" section. Would you be willing to take this on? Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote most of that section from a scholarly, peer-reviewed article I came across. All the stuff about Whale's films is from that article. How can we be certain that it wasn't Whale's own interpretation anyway? Can we prove that he did not agree? Wrad (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I just adjusted the wording a bit to easy the blame. Wrad (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrad, are you interested in doing any more research on the topic? As I said, we really need help on this section! Awadewit (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The addiction

In Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, Victor became addicted to create life in a scense because I think he felt a burden of not being able to save his mother who died during childbirth. Victor's addiction became so overpowering that it was stated that he secluded himself from everone who loved him, even his childhood love, Elizabeth. This seclusion and addiction drove Victor into a world that in the end took his life. --66.248.168.65 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should be about the book; it shouldn't recite the entire story. If you want to know what Frankenstein says about alchemy, just read the thing. The "Plot" section is too long already. TheScotch (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He's not saying we should recite the entire story. The article as it is is inaccurate. Shelley very strongly implies that the process by which the monster is created uses alchemical methods. The article is already inaccurate in stating (several times) that Shelley was purposely vague about the process of creation. In fact, she states pretty clearly that Frankenstein began with dead human flesh, breaking it down into its unspecified (but presumably alchemical) components, then building it back up into new usable tissues. It does not at any time imply that he built the monster from scratch, merely that he broke down existing material and rebuilt it according to his needs. In fact, the entire reason the monster is huge is because Frankenstein hadn't the ability to work on the microscopic scale of natural human bodies. Canonblack (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Laser brain and I are in the middle researching a new version of the article (see above list of sources). You are welcome to help. Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Analysis section

When I removed it, in my edit summary I called it a "Criticism" section. Wrong term in quotes, I meant "Analysis;" rest of my rationale still stands. Sorry; please discuss this removal on the talk page if you have an issue. It is not intended to be vandalism; my experience is that sections of this type disappear from an article sooner or later, and rightly so. 74.47.159.160 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Analysis" wasn't all that great, but I think some of it could be saved. Maybe the last few (well-cited) paragraphs could be moved to a new section called "Authorship Controversy". I wouldn't have a problem with an analysis section that discussed, and cited, commentary on the novel; but I haven't done much editing of literature pages, so if it's not the norm to have such a section, that's okay. Tdslk (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of classic works have sections on analysis/symbolism/interpretation or something along those lines. Much of the information was also cited: (parts of) the first three paragraphs, the paragraph referencing Carol Adams, the paragraph after that provides a reference to upenn.edu, the paragraph after that references (albeit in improper format) Arthur Belefant, the paragraph after that provides references (some improperly formatted, granted), etc. I think it would be better to remove only those sections without citations and work on the formatting of the other citations rather than omitting the entire section. A dullard (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Golem?

In this article, it is stated that the monster was not made up of dead bits, but was like a golem: "In contrast with later film adaptations the monster in the original novel was not created from dead body parts. In fact Frankenstein himself concedes that he later found that reversing death was impossible. While the exact details of the monster's construction are left ambiguous Shelley's depiction of the monster is akin to that of a golem." However, in the book (which I just finished) page 38 states: "The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials;". The only reference I can see to using non-organic matter to form the monster is page 37: "Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?". In spite of the mention of clay, I don't believe this is a reference to the literal building of the body out of clay but is using clay as a metaphor for the tissue in reference to the Biblical creation of Adam from dust.

I would agree that Frankenstein noted that he couldn't reverse death, but the text seems to indicate that he did use organic bits to build his creation.

Is the golem reference an original idea in this article? If not, who's idea was it? Citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegamormegil (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The text in the novel states that he examined the pieces but never that he used them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.133.238 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How much did Shelley know about the golem tales or was she oblivious about them from lack of contact with jewish litterature and traditions? Were the golem tales commonly known by the gentile community of that time?

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Interpretation

"It was also a warning against the expansion of modern man in the Industrial Revolution, alluded to in the novel's subtitle, The Modern Prometheus." I know that this is a very common interpretation of the book. However, there are critics who distance themselves from this point of view by pointing out that the book is not against the dangers of science and industrialisation per se but rather it deals with the question of responsibility. After all the "monster" is pure and good in the beginning and it is the reaction of the humans (they don't respect and accept him) that drives him mad.

Another point:footnote 18 gives a reference to (Leonard Wolf, p.20). However, I can't the full reference (i.e. title of the book, year of publication etc.). Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

can anyone help me right a paper about this story?

i have to write a paper about frankenstein and i don't know what to write —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.238.187 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, these talk pages are for discussions about improvement of the article, not general discussion of the subject, nor is Wikipedia really a tutoring or consulting organization!--WickerGuy (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Alchemy not mentioned?

The turning point for young Victor in the novel is an Alchemical book by Cornelius Agrippa that he stumbles upon, later on he mentions both Albertus Magnus and Paracelsus as other alchemists he likes to read. Paracelsus even claimed in the Renaissance that he created life, or a Humunculus (strangely enough from just semen and dung, as back then it was believed semen had "little men" inside). This is however not featured in the article, giving galvanism a degree if importance (perhaps to link it to the movies), but not a mention of his obssesion with alchemical books, which in the book are dismissed by his proffesors. Alchemy back in the day not also hoped to achieve transmutation of gold, but all sorts of wild and unrealistic goals, among them Immortality, a cure for all illnesses and the creation of life (which dates even 500 years before Paracelsus).--142.177.31.222 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that alchemy is an important aspect of the novel, including the creation of the monster. The creation of a homunculus is part of the art of alchemy, which might also explain the golem discussion below: Frankenstein took elemental materials from charnel houses, but the process of creation what more chemical than surgical, it would seem. Where would he get body parts to create an eight-foot-tall humanoid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.171.184 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to the monster's name

The link to the source was dead, and I cannot find any evidence to verify that Shelley actually referred to the monster as Adam except metaphorically, in the text itself. I would be fascinated to be proved wrong!  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.171.184 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the monster refers to himself as Adam in the novel when ruminating over his reading of Paradise Lost.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

He says he OUGHT to have been Frankenstein's Adam, but instead turned out to be the Fallen Angel. This is a metaphor; he's describing roles, not actual names. As far as I'm able to determine, Shelley did not 'refer' to the monster by any name, and in fact in a letter to Leigh Hunt seems calls it "unnamable". Like I say, I'm happy to be proved wrong, but this fact remains unproven to me so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.171.184 (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A failed artificial life experiment

The first sentence says that the novel is about "a failed artificial life experiment". It didn't exactly fail. He did produce artificial life. Frankenstein may have fail to look after his creation but the succeeded in creating life. JIMp talk·cont 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Monster's Reading List?

Considering how important the 4 books are to the monster (being his only education, and thus his entire set of knowledge beyond direct experience), you'd think the article would at least name them. Sadly, its been over a decade since i read the book, and I can only remember 3 of them: Milton's Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives, and Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'm sure someone probably knows of some scholarly work examining the impact of the monster's reading on his actions and behavior, so I'll leave it to someone with more citable knowledge than me to work this in, but it really does need to be there. What the monster knows is central to the novel. --69.209.52.8 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's only three and they do not include Gibbon's Roman Empire. The third is Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd swear i remembered Gibbon being in there. Well, its been a long time, so maybe I'm just crazy. --69.209.52.8 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Constantin-François de Volney’s Ruins of Empires is in the novel, and is where the monster primarily gets his knowledge of history.184.35.102.31 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
He found three, the fourth (Gibbon) he overheard Felix reading to his girlfriend. JIMp talk·cont 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection or semiprotection

How about requesting protection or semi-protection? These essays, which are evidently part of some school project, show up periodically. It would be nice to get some clue as to what the school is, but in lieu of that perhaps disabling editing for a while would discourage the instructor -- or encourage them to communicate. At least then the essays would just get posted on talk. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already requested semi-protection.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

can i request that there be a headline for themes in the book. There are themes like dangerous knowledge, monstrosity, secrecy, revenge, a life without love, and so forth. The source is http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/frankenstein/themes.html


Mjpayce (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Only when appropriate content is added and such content cannot be lifted from Spark Notes! Their material is copyrighted!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

School Papers

The following is a list of users or IP addresses that over the past year have attempted to post school papers in either the article space or Talk page space. The listing for the Talk page goes further back than the listing for the article space.

  • main article space
    • Georgievski1
    • 72.175.124.221
    • 75.105.47.191
    • 67.162.130.250
  • Talk page
    • Danny7779
    • 65.100.177.76
    • Heatherrusk
    • 198.49.6.225
    • 97.112.138.151
    • 72.148.238.187 (specific request for help with school paper)
    • 72.148.238.187
    • 69.171.160.136

Not all the IP addresses are from the same location. One is from Doylestown, PA, and one is from Denver, CO. The specific request for help for a school paper is from an IP in Atlanta, Georgia.

At any rate, we need to clearly communicate this is an inappropriate use for Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

British Critic review of Frankenstein.

"The writer of it is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel; but if our authoress can forget the gentleness of her sex, it is no reason why we should; and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment" (438)"

I would translate this as:

"We understand that the writer of this is a female. This only makes the fact that she would write such (sordid, macabre, vile) things worse for us. Even though she can forget that she is a female and of the gentler sex, we will not. We therefore will refrain from commenting on it any more (from criticising it).

I actually made a mistake in the comment with my edit by saying that it was they would NOT forget ("go easy") on her because of her gender, actually they did say that.

But they did not "attack her feminimity" or what the original text said. They did make reference to it, and this may be seen as creating too much bias in modern times, in particular if they would have extensively commented more on a male's work. But it was not an attack on feminimity as it originally stated. Anonywiki (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary Hopelessly Inept

"He has the idea to bring to life a human-like creature. However, Victor Frankenstein is a doctor who seems discontent and achieves satisfaction by exploring the supernatural realm. The creation of his monster comes about because of his unchecked intellectual ambition: he had been striving for something beyond his control." This is awful, and I urge someone with the time and talent to rewrite the entire section. Orthotox (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Some guy (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Late 18th century?

I think that's the setting but if anyone could bring quotation to give a better idea of when the novel is set, it would improve the article a lot...Undead Herle King (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

two possible answers: during the present (Shelley's present)-- 1810s. Or, during an undefined, inexact pastoral/gothic/elegiac time that brings together elements of the present and the old-timey but which still should not be given a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.167.126 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the first. This is science fiction and concerns the hypothetical application of real recent scientific advances. (Richard Holmes's "The Age of Wonder" suggests--fairly convincingly, I'd say-- that Victor Frankenstein's experiments may be based on those of one real-life Johann Wilhelm Ritter, who died in 1810.) TheScotch (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The dates that are given in the novel are all 17-- (sic; a way of showing that the story takes place in the 18th century without providing a specific date); but various references to books and literary quotations show that the principal events cannot take place earlier than the 1790s, indeed most likely the last years of the 1790s. Of course it cannot take place later than 1818, the date of publication.66.168.24.216 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron

I have noticed that there is a large amount of discussion about Percy Shelley and Lord Byron on the Frankenstein page. I understand that these men had a large influence on Mary Shelley and her novel, but there seems to be a digression of the actual work in question in the Composition and the Modern Prometheus section. These sections include Byron's writings that influenced The Vampyre by John Polidori and Prometheus' influence on Percy Shelley to write Prometheus Unbound. These are very interesting facts, but what I am suggesting is that these facts are inappropriate on the Frankenstein page. However, it might be instead appropriate to delete these anecdotes from this page, and, instead, be added onto the author's own pages or works. These digressions detract from Mary Shelley and her own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaraub (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reception"

Re: "What is interesting to note about these glowing reviews is that the critics assume that the anonymous author is a man.":

Interesting to whom? This remark is Point-Of-View and should be removed or rewritten.

Re: "Despite these initial dismissals, critical reception has been largely positive since the mid-20th century.":

It seems to me doubtful one can reasonably call middle twentieth-century assessment of an early nineteenth-century work "reception". The novel had already been received long before. "Critical reception" here should be replaced with some term like critical opinion. Also: "Positive" should be replaced with something like favorable.

TheScotch (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire section appears to be plagiarized from another source - complete with the author's parenthetical footnotes. It should be re-written, or else properly credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.113.249 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Shouldn't we clarify the pronunciation of "Frankenstein"? I've only heard the 'stein' part pronounced as 's' in English, but Poles, for instance, say 'shtein'. It might help to give guidance on this and it can eventually filter through to other language wikis. Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not necessary. As with Oscar Hammerstein and Albert Einstein, English speakers usually pronounce the "steins" with an 's' sound. Instead of using the English Wikipedia to filter things through to other language wikis, why not just add information to them directly? I don't know why even that would be necessary. Anyone communicating in German or Polish is bound to pronounce it "shtein" anyway. I'm not sure what you think this would accomplish. Willondon (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That's FRONK-en-shteen... (Young Frankenstein) Scr★pIronIV 13:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy novel?

Somebody categorized it as a fantasy novel. Is it? Where's the magic in it? I thought it's soft science fiction. Can somebody please clarify? If not, then remove that category.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The categories on this article are out of control. It should be in categories as reflected by reliable sources in the article body. It's a gothic fiction novel—anything else I would question or challenge. --Laser brain (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The name of this monster is not Frankenstein

From the article: Since publication of the novel, the name "Frankenstein" is often used to refer to the monster itself, as is done in the stage adaptation by Peggy Webling. This usage is sometimes considered erroneous, but usage commentators regard the monster sense of "Frankenstein" as well-established and not an error.[2][3][4]

Why should it matter what usage commentators say? It's fashionable today to say that any usage or grammatical construction is correct if enough people think it is. The question here, however, concerns what was actually written down in the pages of this novel, and not the muddled understanding of the popular imagination. Facts are facts, and Frankenstein is the scientist. To use the name Frankenstein to refer to the monster is degrading to the novel and its author, for it diverts our attention away from the human protagonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Pithecanthropus (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you overall. There's a difference between what is accepted as common usage and what is technically correct. Saying that using "Frankenstein" is "not an error" is the same thing as stating literally that the text refers to the monster as "Frankenstein" when clearly it doesn't. I think leaving off the "and not an error" part still gets across that everyone will understand to whom you are referring when you say "Frankenstein" while not getting too worked up over a usage not supported by the text. And at the same time not implying that the text uses the name "Frankenstein" in this manner. Or perhaps a compromise of "well-established and an acceptable usage."? SQGibbon (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Should the creature not receive the name of its father? It is, after all, not only Frankenstein's monster, but in a very real sense a sort of son of his as well... 51.9.120.87 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mismatched Parts

The books makes no mention of Frankenstein sewing together mismatched body parts or "pieces of cadavers", and doing so would be completely inconsistent with making the creature eight feet tall and proportionally large to facilitate dealing with the minuteness of the parts.

"When I found so astonishing a power placed within my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it. Although I possessed the capacity of bestowing animation, yet to prepare a frame for the reception of it, with all its intricacies of fibres, muscles, and veins, still remained a work of inconceivable difficulty and labour. I doubted at first whether I should attempt the creation of a being like myself, or one of simpler organization; but my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man. The materials at present within my command hardly appeared adequate to so arduous an undertaking, but I doubted not that I should ultimately succeed. I prepared myself for a multitude of reverses; my operations might be incessantly baffled, and at last my work be imperfect, yet when I considered the improvement which every day takes place in science and mechanics, I was encouraged to hope my present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future success. Nor could I consider the magnitude and complexity of my plan as any argument of its impracticability. It was with these feelings that I began the creation of a human being. As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature, that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large."

This is presumably an example of portrayals in other media intruding into discussion of the book. --tronvillain (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Galvanism

The lead section refers to "the topics of galvanism and other similar occult ideas". Is it reasonable to describe galvanism as an "occult idea"? 86.183.2.37 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Occult" is here probably meant in the sense described in the article Occult:
"The term is sometimes popularly taken to mean 'knowledge meant only for certain people' (...)"
As this is only a rather colloquial way of using the term, one should — given it is meant like that, here — probably best replace it by "arcane", "upcoming scientific", or similar. This would but instantly rise the question if in the sentence
"Shelley had travelled the region in which the story takes place, and the topics of galvanism and other similar occult ideas were themes of conversation among her companions."
, there is meant a discussion about galvanism and other upcoming scientific insights or one about galvanism and, moreover, certain esoteric speculations. I for my part cannot fix the spot, because I don`t know the facts. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's five years late, but in the preface to the 1831 edition, Shelley says of the conversations, "During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among other, the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated." I'm not sure if there's actually any supporting evidence for the use for the use of the word "occult." --tronvillain (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

epublib.info

Here we have a link to a random website providing ebooks of Frankenstein (as well as copyrighted works, like Trump: The Art of the Deal), despite the Gutenberg link already existing. Seems like WP:ELNO would apply here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor as a spam-only account. --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed. Thanks. I supposed I should look up how to report that kind of thing. *chuckle* WP:SPAM, I suppose. --tronvillain (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC); edited 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein

The planned Bride of Frankenstein entry into the universe appears to have been postponed indefinitely. It is not a "film featuring Frankenstein" that exists, and is not even in production. If they eventually end up making it, it can be added again. --tronvillain (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Reports specify "paused" and is part of a larger Dark Universe plan. Removing it at this point would require an equally viable source for its cancellation. Give it a few days until a better source arrives, and a decision is made. There is no WP:DEADLINE Scr★pIronIV 22:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Arguably, that was a month ago. And if there's no WP:DEADLINE, this entry could have waited until the movie actually existed. --tronvillain (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Age when published

Looking for the answer to the question, "How old was Mary Shelley when Frankenstein was published?" I keep coming across the answer "21." She was born in late 1797. Book was published Jan 1, 1818. But she didn't turn 21 until August of 1818. Right? Xous (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@Xous: I'm suspicious of any publication date that says specifically "January 1". I very strongly suspect the involvement of some [wiki?]code that insists on a full date, and supplies the first of the month if there is no day and January if there is no month specified. I am all but absolutely certain that the only documentation consulted for the date of publication said just "1818"; probably the title page of the first edition of volume I, as shown in the article. At the bottom it says "1818"-- "only this and nothing more". --Thnidu (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
As seen here, the publication date does appear to have been 1 January 1818, though being suspicious of the first of January in general is quite reasonable.[1] --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Staff writer (1 January 1818). "Books Published This Day". The Times. No. 10342. London, England. p. 4 – via Newspapers.com. This day is published, in 3 vols., price 16s. 6d., a Work of Imagination, to be entitled Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.

"Films, plays and television"

This section includes only one stage version of Frankenstein. Is it possible to include others?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1826: Henry M. Milner's adaptation, The Man and The Monster; or The Fate of Frankenstein opened on 3 July at the Royal Coburg Theatre, London -- is the 1826 publication date correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.129.71.40 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Adam of your labors"

'Speaking to Victor Frankenstein, the wretch refers to himself as "the Adam of your labours"'

This uncited quote is not in the novel and yet has remained on this page for, as far as I can tell, about six and a half years, since user WickerGuy edited it in October 2011.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankenstein&direction=next&oldid=456057083

Supposedly they we're clarifying a statement: "During a telling of Frankenstein, Shelley referred to the creature as "Adam"." That sentence cited a PDF that doesn't exist anymore, but which is the full text of [these pages](https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/frankenstein/exhibition2s0.html). There is no such reference.

I did a cursory Google search and found no reference to this phrase previous to October 2011. Though I do see a lot of people parroting the quote as fact, citing this page. Where in the world did it come from and how has it gone unnoticed for so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.98.219 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that it's someone's summary of "Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.". Shortened misquotes can have quite the life.--tronvillain (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section

Since Science magazine just published a special 200th anniversary issue on "The long shadow of Frankenstein", making the provocative statement that

Two hundred years later, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is still essential reading for anyone working in science. The ill-fated creator she portrays has influenced public perception of the scientific enterprise unlike any other character, forever haunting the borderland between what science can do and what it should do.

Researchers, especially in the life sciences, are understandably anxious about being tainted with the “F-word.” To the charge of playing God, they usually react by professing humility, but some take a more defiant attitude. James Watson once famously de[clared: “If scientists don't play God, who else is going to?” Craig Venter is on record as having said about his synthesis of a microbe with a minimal genome: “Shelley would have loved this!” Frankenstein lives on, editorial by Henk van den Belt

  • Review of a 2018 reissue with critical commentary. I have the link & some remarks at [4]. I'm down with the flu, will get back to this eventually. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

So, I'll draft up something here. The introductory article is available online, Here's the first supporting article + graphic: [5]. And the second, [6] The editorial is also in the clear.


WiP, --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Darwin not mentioned as influence?

It's surprising that the only specific named influence mentioned by Shelley -- i.e. Erasmus Darwin -- is not included on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Charles Darwin is mentioned as an influence, which is odd, as he would have been 9 years old at the time of publication.Romi56 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Charles Darwin NOT a literary influence

Under the heading "Background: Literary influences", it states "Her time spent with Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, her baby, and her sister Jane influenced her creation of Frankenstein as well. Percy and Byron's discussion on life and death surrounded many scientific geniuses of the time. They discussed ideas from Charles Darwin and the experiments from Luigi Galvani." (emphasis added) This is impossible, given that Charles Darwin was born in 1809, so in 1816, when Mary Shelley wrote the novel, Darwin would've been 7 or 8 years old. Bricology (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Set up automatic archiving?

This talk page is getting kinda unwieldy. Would anyone object if I tried to set up one of the bots to do automatic archiving?

Links to archives and a search field would be provided in the boxy-thingy up top of the page. Archiving would typically happen along the lines of: threads older than X days (typically something like 30, 60, 90, 120) are periodically moved into Archive N, until Archive N exceeds a given byte size (e.g. 100kb), at which point further threads are moved to Archive N+1. A minimum number of threads (2-3) are typically kept irrespective of age. With this configuration, on the first archive run, all threads barring this one and the three preceding ones would be archive.

Opinions for, against, or even don't care would be appreciated! --Xover (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, absent objections I've set up archiving. Each time the bot runs (about once a day I think) it will archive all threads with no replies more recent than 90 days. It will always leave at least 3 threads here regardless of age. Archived threads are written to /Archive 2 until its size exceedes 200kB, at which point threads will be archived to /Archive 3. Archived threads are, of course, also still available in this page's revision history. All archives will be automatically listed in the archives box up top here, as will an index of topics for old threads in the archives.
Please feel free to {{ping}} me if there's any trouble with this setup. --Xover (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Potential rewrite

If I was to bring this page to GA status, what would be some essential sources I'd need? JOEBRO64 23:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: See the #Reading list section above, and notes at /Notes, both from an aborted 2010 effort to bring the article up to standard. You'll need to search the literature for newer sources too, as there have been some new developments since that list was put together. And before you embark on this project, be aware that while Frankenstein has an immense footprint in pop culture, you will also need a massive amount of coverage from the perspective of literature, literary history, its own historiography, feminism and gender studies, Shelley's biography and historiography, Percy Bysshe Shelley's biography and historiography, and quite possibly also touching on Clairemont and Lord Byron (see History of a Six Weeks' Tour for some of the context here). I don't want to discourage anyone from taking it on, but it's a massive effort and will require a solid background in English literature. For a GA run you may be able to get away with just pruning the trivia and cruft, and adding cites where missing, depending on the reviewer you get. But if you aim for FA I strongly suggest you find a couple of collaborators (Awadewit is sadly no longer with us, and I doubt Laser brain has the time for such a project these days, or I'd recommend getting in touch with them). --Xover (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Badly worded sentence

"Some have claimed that for Mary Shelley, Prometheus was not a hero but rather something of a devil, whom she blamed for bringing fire to man and thereby seducing the human race to the vice of eating meat (fire brought cooking which brought hunting and killing).[40]"

Can someone improve this sentence? It sounds to me like the article is supporting the claim that finding fire led to eating meat, which is at best controversial. Humans ate meat before they discovered fire; if anything, the ability to cook made them eat less meat because of the newfound ability to eat vegetables. 93.139.17.24 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not talking about modern Paleoanthropology. AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also this: 

"However, none of the neglect stopped Shelley from becoming the great author she was."

What? Romi56 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What does any of this ideology have anything to do with her? Only vaguely to Percy and an academic convo about the subject for people in general, needs to be removed, bloats the article with supposition that wasn't part of authorship of novel but analysis afterward. Abrupt with no binding thread. Comparative lit? Ill placed. Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pygmalion_(play) influence?

Pygmalion (play) can't possibly be a literary influence on Frankenstein, since it was written over 100 years later. What is this line supposed to say? Is it supposed to refer to Pygmalion (mythology), instead? DaviddesJ (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Good call, corrected it after finding the right pygmalion. A French authorship based on same mythology. Unsure what mayhem occurs, lol. Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

In my opinion, it's worth mentioning somewhere that Mary's work created the franken- prefix. http://movies2.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000813mag-onlanguage.html SiberianDante (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Period

The article says that the story "takes place at an unspecified time in the 18th century". In fact it can be narrowed down a bit further than that. In chapter 13 there's a reference to Volney's Ruins of Empire, which was published in the 1790s, while in Chapter 19 Victor mentions the Siege of Oxford as having taken place "more than a century and a half before". The Siege of Oxford was 1644-46. MFlet1 (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, in Chapter 15 the monster reads Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774; first French translation 1776, although Shelley might not have known that). Shelley's mis-spelling "Werter" may be from an English translation, apparently an attempt to represent some of the German pronunciation. Errantius (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Affair

The article currently describes speculation of an affair: "Mary and Percy's trip with Claire to visit her lover Lord Byron, in Geneva during the summer of 1816, began the friendship amongst the two couples in which Byron suggested they have a competition of writing the best ghost story. Historians suggest an affair occurred too, even that paternity of one Shelley child may have been a Byron." The typical meaning of "affair" is "a sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other". Mary didn't marry Shelly until 30 December 1816, three weeks after he became a widower. Therefore at this juncture in the narrative it is already well established that:

  • Shelly was committing an affair with Mary (he was married; she was not)
  • Shelly also committed an affair with Claire ("On 22 February 1815, (...) Percy did not care about the condition of this premature infant and left with Claire, Mary's stepsister, for a lurid affair.")
  • Lord Byron was also committing an affair with Claire (by whom she was pregnant)

and amid this free love fluid bonding feeding frenzy historians suggest an affair occurred‽

If historians suggest affairs additional to the three already clearly described may have occurred, then let us enumerate those suggestions (with corresponding citations) such as if Lord Byron committed an affair with Shelly, or if Lord Byron committed an affair with Mary. Evidently any children arising from a union between Lord Byron and Mary would not have been a "Shelly" as Mary was still single at that point (that is, she was still unmarried) and her affair with Shelly would have nothing to do with the name of children arising from her hypothetical affair with Lord Byron.

I suggest replacing "Historians suggest an affair occurred too, even that paternity of one Shelley child may have been a Byron." with "Historians speculate Lord Byron may have sired at least one of Mary's children." to make it clear. 49.180.147.255 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that Mary Godwin wrote Frankenstein but Mary Shelley published, but Mary Shelley is the author of Frankenstein. Throughout this article is "Shelley" naming problem either Percy or Mary, then use Godwin but meaning which, then if Mary but her mother? Old English usage of siring is an act while paternity the issue and doesn't clarify. The age old debate of what happened with whom that weekend is suggested as no one knows and it reeks of WP:OR to do more than is written and cited within article already.Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
How is this sex-life relevant to the book? Errantius (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semicolon

Why did Shelley use a semicolon in the title instead of a colon? Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question! Grammar was not fully formalised at the time of Shelley's writing, and much of these little flourishes were left up to the authors' preferences. For example, Henry James had a penchant for writing "did n't" instead of the more modern "didn't", and publications simply obliged. Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, or What You Will uses a comma (Shakespeare's subtitle was a parody of subtitles, given that it means absolutely nothing — Shelley's subtitle was genuinely informative to her readers, hinting at what was to come). Rather than thinking of it as a subtitle, Shelley might have thought of it as an alternate title. ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Heh..Shakespeare also wrote "has" ha's (because he thought of it as shortened form of "hath"?) but "I'll" he wrote Ile. *shrug* :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Letters date

As seen in: Summary - Captain Walton's introductory narrative - It says: (...)"The story likely takes place in 1817 (the letters are dated as "17"). The first letter date as seen in WikiSource St. Petersburgh, Dec. 11th, 17—. Therefore the story cannot take place in 1817 but in the 18th Century.

Correct. The story takes place in the 1700s, and that's all we know. Who is Captain Walton and why do we care what he thinks? ^^ Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

sapient vs sentient

The second line of the entry states "a young scientist who creates a sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment." Surely the word sentient is the one most apt here. (rather than sapient)

Nope. "Sentient" is "having feeling", "sapient" is "having intelligence". Like Homo sapiens. Frankenstein created an intelligent lifeform, the equal (at least) of man. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead section and references to Castle Frankenstein

In accordance with the note, shouldn't the lead statement be edited? It seems to also imply support for the theory that the Castle and Dippel were an inspiration for Victor Frankenstein which, while there is scholarly support for, there is also scholarly disagreement/lack of a consensus. I'd say to save it for the section specifically on the subject, not the lead. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:34D9:F322:9C29:28C6 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Original story

Does anyone know about the original version of the story that was rejected by publishers, and why? It was NOT a horror story. Unfortunately, I do not have the references supporting this fact but the article should refer to this back-story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janosabel (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

With no references, it cannot be added, but with almost 700 people watching this page, there is bound to be someone who might know something. Just wait a bit and see if anyone comments or knows more information. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure what you're describing doesn't exist. There are two different versions of the book (this is covered in the Publication section of the article) but the revisions aren't that big. It is easier to understand Victor's motivations in the later version, but the tone of the story isn't greatly changed. Both versions were published. It is true that it was rejected a couple times before it was published, but AFAIK no major changes were made in that period. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankenstein/Archive_2&oldid=1192488327"